DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Whitepaper/Letter to James Hansen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Whitepaper/Letter to James Hansen Nuclear Power: Totally Unqualified to Combat Climate Change An Open Letter from the World Business Academy to leading climatologist Dr. James Hansen regarding his advocacy of nuclear power as a solution to global warming. by Rinaldo S. Brutoco 2020 Alameda Padre Serra Suite 135, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 (805) 892-4600 • www.worldbusiness.org © World Business Academy 2014 January 27, 2014 Re: Nuclear Power as an Agent in Combatting Climate Change Dear Professor Hansen: I am the founDer anD President of the World Business AcaDemy,1 a non-profit business think tank established in 1987 with a mission to (i) explore the role anD responsibility of business in relation to critical moral, environmental, and social issues of our day; (ii) inspire the business community to assume responsibility for the whole of society; and (iii) assist those in business who share our values to take greater responsibility for positive social outcomes from business initiatives. The Academy’s projects and numerous publications take on today’s challenges including environmental degradation; the shift away from dirty energy anD towarD clean, renewable energy; anD the existential threat posed by climate change. In fact, the Academy has had an active Energy Task Force working continuously on these issues since 1997. Academy Fellows, representing some of the best and brightest men and women shaping today’s global landscape, have analyzed, reported and predicted the transforming paradigm shifts in business and society.2 My colleagues anD I at the WorlD Business AcaDemy have followeD your climate activism for many years and your on-going campaign to restrain the coal and oil industries with great interest. Your research, congressional testimony, and activism to address climate change has brought this very real global threat into the public consciousness. Thank You for setting the stage to develop a strategy for preserving human civilization as we know it and the sentient species who inhabit the biosphere. Your latest study, “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations anD Nature,” has further articulateD a higher, more urgent imperative for immeDiate climate remeDiation. 3 1 World Business Academy, http://worldbusiness.org. 2 http://worldbusiness.org/about/fellows/ 3 Hansen J., Kharecha P., Sato M., Masson-Delmotte V., Ackerman F., et al. (2013), “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” PLoS ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648, December 3, 2013. Page 1 These findings also appear to be confirmed by The Geological Society, who in a December 2013 addendum to its 2010 climate change report, finds that “[r]ecent research has given rise to the concept of ‘Earth System sensitivity’, which also takes account of slow acting factors like the decay of large ice sheets and the operation of the full carbon cycle, to estimate the full sensitivity of the Earth System to a doubling of CO2. It is estimated that this could be double the climate sensitivity.”4 The World Business Academy agrees with the substantive findings from these reports and is firmly committed to implementing the most expeditious path towards (i) eliminating or mitigating all sources of carbon and methane emissions and (ii) remediating ambient CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels. After 15 years of research, the World Business Academy has approached this issue from a neutral standpoint and determined that due to cumulative, long-term thawing of the permafrost region and Albedo Effect impacts, the global environment is deep in a negative feedback loop exacerbated by increasing glacial and ice sheet runoff. Even if we were to achieve zero carbon emissions tomorrow, it would be too late for the global environment to self-remediate within the recognizable future without active human intervention in the form of various geoengineering solutions to supplement a zero carbon emission approach. As you know, CO2 is already at 406ppm globally and is shooting perilously upward on an increasing trajectory. This will prove non-survivable for the mass of humanity trapped by a climate-induced “insanity” that will likely surprise us with its ferocity in challenging human civilization. As was noted in the final finding of fact in the most recent IPCC report, a reduction of CO2 by more than 100% is required to begin to bring the planet back to stability and safety.5 Without a reversal of CO2 emissions, we are approaching the tipping point where sequestered methane deposits located beneath the ice tundra and ocean depths are exposed, resulting in a massive release (rather than the constant “tickle” we are now experiencing) that will exponentially increase the resources needed to reverse the climate crisis. In short, the human race does not have the luxury of a “do over” when formulating climate strategy. We have to begin reversing the increasing levels of CO2 and ambient methane right now. We are out of time! Given the urgency of the climate related issues you champion, with which we are in total agreement, we are nonetheless deeply vexed with your proposal to embrace nuclear power in fighting climate change. As delineated in a joint letter published on November 3rd by you, Kenneth Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wigley,6 it appears that you may not be as fully informed about nuclear fission as you are informed about climate change. We would like to assist with developing a greater knowledge base about nuclear issues out of respect for the incredible scientific integrity you clearly possess. 4Summerhayes, C.P., Cann, J.W. Wolff, E.W., et al, “An addendum to the Geological Society Statement on Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record,” The Geological Society, December 2013. 5 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 26. 6 “Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencers,” CNN World, November 3, 2013. Page 2 A letter, dated January 6, 2014, has already been sent to you by The Civil Society Institute and Nuclear Information and Resource Service which was co-signed by over 300 organizations world-wide, rebutting the assumptions set forth in your November 3rd letter and presenting arguments against the use of nuclear power to mitigate climate change.7 The World Business Academy was a contributing signatory to the CSI/NIRS letter and proposes in this communication to expand on those arguments and provide additional reference materials in support of our assertions. My first book on nuclear energy, “Profiles in Power,” was co-authored with Professor Jerry Brown of the Academy and was published in 1997 by the textbook division of Simon & Schuster. From that time forward, the Academy has maintained a permanent research effort on virtually every aspect of nuclear power, has published very frequently on the subject, and has continuously sought solutions for society to mitigate the most harmful side effects of nuclear fission. We are hopeful that further elaboration of the challenges associated with nuclear power will persuade you to embrace more economic, more readily available, and more certain renewable energy technologies which will surpass the nuclear industry’s alleged ability to assist in mitigating climate change without any harmful side effects. All that we ask is that you give what follows a fair and impartial review. We are confident that, as a scientist with an outstanding global reputation, an impartial review will speak to you more convincingly than the rationale in support of nuclear power asserted by some of your climate change colleagues. It is our contention that those who tout nuclear power as a carbon-free solution to global warming are missing the forest and the trees. First, the forest: nuclear power plants continuously emit low levels of cancer-causing strontium-90 radiation during “normal” operations, and higher levels when there are serious problems such as the continuing leakage of radioactive water from the tsunami-damaged reactors at Fukushima, or the radiation leak that lead to the instantaneous closure of the San Onofre nuclear reactor in Southern California in January 20128. Today, even as radiation levels surge in Japan, media pundits discuss the dangers of radiation as if radiation sickness were limited to instances in which people experience nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, or death. This is false. A host of studies show that radioactive emissions of deadly strontium-90 during nuclear plants’ routine operations increase cancer rates among those who live near the plants, especially in women and children.9 (See Appendix A, 7 Civil Society Institute/Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Letter dated January 6, 2014, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/hansenletter1614.pdf. 8 The World Business Academy was the only business group that participated as a state-authorized Intervener in the hearings which lead to the permanent closure of the San Onofre reactor in Orange County California on June 7, 2013, and continues to appear before the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) as an Intervener seeking to recover $1.5 billion dollars from Southern California Edison for its extraordinary overcharges to ratepayers and for its failure to tell the truth to either the CPUC or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) regarding the substitution of faulty steam generator units that were not “like kind” exchanges. The NRC in late December, 2013 issued a citation against Southern California Edison unmasking its illegal conduct. 9 Joseph J. Mangano et al., “An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing
    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power and Harm to Animals, Wild and Domestic
    THE CASE AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER Nuclear power and harm to animals, wild and domestic A PUBLICATION OF BEYOND NUCLEAR Nuclear power and harm to animals, wild and domestic 1 Cover image: Gray Wolf, by Gunnar Ries, Creative Commons/Flickr Acknowledgements This booklet would not have been possible without all the incredible work that has already been done on this subject by our colleagues around the world. Many of our sources are acknowledged in the endnotes, but we would like to give special thanks to two scientists in particular. Dr. Timothy Mousseau and his colleagues have worked extensively in the radioactively contaminated zones around both the Chernobyl nuclear disas- ter site in Ukraine, and the stricken Fukushima reactors in Japan. Far from finding animals “thriving” in the absence of humans, Mousseau and his colleagues discovered birds suffering sterility and cataracts, small mammals with tumors, and generally reduced life expectancies. Dr. Bruno Chareyron, and his France-based laboratory, CRIIRAD, have sampled and analyzed wild habitats in Europe, North America, Siberia and Africa with alarming results. Dr. Chareyron found high levels of radioactive contamination in lakes, rivers, aquatic plants, desert sands and rocks and in the air. His conclusions about the negative impacts to human health apply to animals as well. In 2001, two of us now at Beyond Nuclear, but then at other organizations, published an in-depth study about the impact on marine animals from the routine operation of coastal US nuclear power plants. We have quoted our report — Licensed to Kill—extensively because sadly, since then, almost nothing has changed for the better.
    [Show full text]
  • Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global Warming
    Science in Context 26(1), 137–152 (2013). Copyright ©C Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0269889712000312 Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global War ming Richard D. Besel California Polytechnic State University E-mail: [email protected] Argument Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate was an important turning point in the history of global climate change. However, no studies have explained why Hansen’s scientific communication in this deliberative setting was more successful than his testimonies of 1986 and 1987. This article turns to Hansen as an important case study in the rhetoric of accommodated science, illustrating how Hansen successfully accommodated his rhetoric to his non-scientist audience given his historical conditions and rhetorical constraints. This article (1) provides a richer explanation for the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming as an important public policy issue in the United States during the late 1980s and (2) contributes to scholarly understanding of the rhetoric of accommodated science in deliberative settings, an often overlooked area of science communication research. Standing on the promontory of the rocky rims in Billings, Montana, there is usually a distinct horizontal line between the clear, blue sky and the white, snowcapped Beartooth Mountains. But the summer of 1988 was different. A fuzzy, reddish tint lingered across the once pristine skyline of “Big Sky Country.” The reason: More than one hundred miles to the south, Yellowstone National Park smoldered in one of the most devastating forest fires of the twentieth century (Anon. 1988, A18; Stevens 1999, 129–130).
    [Show full text]
  • Ken Caldeira
    Curriculum Vitae for Ken Caldeira PRESENT POSITION Senior Scientist Professor (by courtesy) Department of Global Ecology Department of Environmental Earth System Sciences Carnegie Institution Stanford University 260 Panama Street 450 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305 USA Stanford, California 94305 USA [email protected] [email protected] (650) 704-7212; fax: (650) 462-5968 EDUCATION Ph.D.,1991, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science M.S.,1988, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science B.A.,1978 Rutgers College, Philosophy PRIOR RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Physicist/Environmental Scientist (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1995 to 2005) Research ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, ocean/sea-ice physics, climate, and energy systems Post-Doctoral Researcher (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 1993 to 1995) Research the ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 and climate NSF Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow (Earth Systems Science Center & Dept. of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University; 1991 to 1993) Role of the carbonate-silicate cycle in long-term atmospheric CO2 content and climate GENERAL RESEARCH INTERESTS Ocean acidification; climate/carbon-cycle interactions; numerical simulation of climate and biogeochemistry; marine biogeochemical cycles; global carbon cycle; long-term evolution of climate and geochemical cycles; intentional intervention in the climate system; energy technology and policy ADVISORY PANELS / DISSERTATION COMMITTEES National Academy of Sciences,
    [Show full text]
  • Ken Caldeira
    Curriculum Vitae for Ken Caldeira PRESENT POSITION Senior Scientist Professor (by courtesy) Department of Global Ecology Department of Earth System Science Carnegie Institution Stanford University 260 Panama Street 450 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305 USA Stanford, California 94305 USA [email protected] [email protected] (650) 704-7212; fax: (650) 462-5968 EDUCATION Ph.D.,1991, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science M.S.,1988, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science B.A.,1978, Rutgers College, Philosophy PRIOR RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Physicist/Environmental Scientist (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1995 to 2005) Research ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, ocean/sea-ice physics, climate, and energy systems Post-Doctoral Researcher (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 1993 to 1995) Research the ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 and climate NSF Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow (Earth Systems Science Center & Dept. of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University; 1991 to 1993) Role of the carbonate-silicate cycle in long-term atmospheric CO2 content and climate GENERAL RESEARCH INTERESTS Ocean acidification; climate/carbon-cycle interactions; numerical simulation of climate and biogeochemistry; marine biogeochemical cycles; global carbon cycle; long-term evolution of climate and geochemical cycles; intentional intervention in the climate system; energy technology and policy ADVISORY PANELS / DISSERTATION COMMITTEES / ETC National Academy of Sciences, Geoengineering Climate Panel Member (2014) IPCC AR5 Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contributing Author (2013) Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (2010) National Academy of Sciences, America's Climate Choices Panel Member (2009) UK Royal Society Geoengineering Report Panel Member (2009) Global Carbon Project, Scientific Steering Committee Member (2009-2013) European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), Advisory Board Member (2008-2012) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Weathering Heights 08 July 2020 James Hansen
    Weathering Heights 08 July 2020 James Hansen In 2007 Bill McKibben asked me whether 450 ppm would be a reasonable target for atmospheric CO2, if we wished to maintain a hospitable climate for future generations. 450 ppm seemed clearly too high, based on several lines of evidence, but especially based on paleoclimate data for climate change. We were just then working on a paper,1 Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide, 2 that included consideration of CO2 changes over the Cenozoic era, the past 65 million years, since the end of the Cretaceous era. The natural source of atmospheric CO2 is volcanic emissions that occur mainly at continental margins due to plate tectonics (“continental drift”). The natural sink is the weathering process, which ultimately deposits carbon on the ocean floor as limestone. David Beerling, an expert in trace gas biogeochemistry at the University of Sheffield, was an organizer of the meeting at which I presented the above referenced paper. Soon thereafter I enlisted David and other paleoclimate experts to help answer Bill’s question about a safe level of atmospheric CO2, which we concluded was somewhere south of 350 ppm.3 Since then, my group at Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions (CSAS), has continued to cooperate with David’s group at the University of Sheffield. One of the objectives is to investigate the potential for drawdown of atmospheric CO2 by speeding up the weathering process. In the most recent paper, which will be published in Nature tomorrow, David and co-authors report on progress in testing the potential for large-scale CO2 removal via application of rock dust on croplands.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change in a Nutshell: the Gathering Storm James Hansen
    Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm 18 December 2018 James Hansen Young people today confront an imminent gathering storm. They have at their command considerable determination, a dog-eared copy of our beleaguered Constitution, and rigorously developed science. The Court must decide if that is enough. That is the final paragraph of my (thick) Expert Report written more than a year ago for Juliana v. United States. We are fortunate to have such a brilliant and dedicated group of attorneys who have assembled a score of experts and are working to ensure that young people receive their day in court. In the meantime, there are reasons why it may be useful to summarize the climate science story. Albert Einstein once said that a theory or explanation should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. And it depends on who the audience is. My target is the level of a Chief Justice or a fossil fuel industry CEO. This is a draft, because I want to be sure that there are no inconsistencies in my testimonies against the government, against the fossil fuel industry, and in support of brave people who have taken risks in fighting for young people. This 18 December version is only a slight revision to the 06 December ‘Nutshell’, because it is needed this week for a specific court case. I will revise it further, so suggestions are still welcome. However, bear in mind that this is aimed at the highly-educated open-minded Chief Justice and fossil fuel industry CEOs. I begin with an ‘Outline of Opinions’, but the aim here is not an ‘elevator speech’ or a summary for relatives and neighbors.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Budgetbudget 20092009 GCP-Carbon Budget2009 Contributors
    Budget09 released on 21 November 2010 ppt version 20 January 2011 CarbonCarbon BudgetBudget 20092009 GCP-Carbon Budget2009 Contributors Karen Assmann Peter E. Levy University of Bergen, Norway Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, UK Thomas A. Boden Sam Levis Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Co, USA Ridge, Tennessee USA Mark R. Lomas Gordon Bonan Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, U National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA Joseph Majkut Laurent Bopp AOS Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR, CEA-CNRS- Nicolas Metzl UVSQ, France LOCEAN-IPSL, CNRS, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université Pierre et Marie Erik Buitenhuis Curie, Paris, France School of Environment Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Corinne Le Quéré Ken Caldeira School of Environment Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Depart. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, USA British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK Josep G. Canadell Andrew Lenton Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Tasmania, Australia Australia Ivan Lima Philippe Ciais Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS- Gregg Marland UVSQ, France Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Thomas J. Conway Ridge, Tennessee, USA NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA Glen P. Peters Steve Davis Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway Depart. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, USA Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Black Carbon May Be Fastest Strategy for Slowing Climate Change
    Reducing Black Carbon May Be Fastest Strategy for Slowing Climate Change ∗ IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 29 August 2008 ∗∗ Black Carbon Is Potent Climate Forcing Agent and Key Target for Climate Mitigation Reducing black carbon (BC) may offer the greatest promise for immediate climate mitigation. BC is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO 2). Because BC remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing BC emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term. 1 Addressing BC now can help delay the possibility of passing thresholds, or tipping points, for abrupt and irreversible climate changes, 2 which could be as close as ten years away and have potentially 3 catastrophic impacts. It also can buy policymakers critical time to address CO 2 emissions in the middle and long terms. Estimates of BC’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25,4 to the most recent estimate of .9 W/m 2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO 2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other 5 greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH 4, CFCs, N 2O, or tropospheric ozone.” In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of BC on melting snowpack and glaciers may be 6 equal to that of CO 2. BC emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0° C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” 7 Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.” 8 Since 1950, many countries have significantly reduced BC emissions, especially from fossil fuel sources, primarily to improve public health, and “technology exists for a drastic reduction of fossil fuel related BC” throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent-Based Siting
    Consent-Based Siting From: Karen Hadden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:00 AM To: Consent Based Siting <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding Consent‐Based Siting 1 SEED Coalition and No Nuclear Waste Aqui Comments – July 31, 2016 In Response to DOE Invitation for Public Comment regarding Consent-Based Siting Dear U.S. Department of Energy, These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, a non-profit environmental organization based in Texas, with 2500 members, and the No Nuclear Waste Aqui network, which includes individuals and organizations in Texas and New Mexico. Several of our members attended the Tempe meeting, at great expense. Everyone had to fly to the meeting since it was too far to drive. It’s 743 miles to Tempe from Andrews, Texas. Former State Rep. Lon Burnam from Ft. Worth, Humberto Acosta from Andrews, Rose Gardner from Eunice and Noel Marquez from Artesia, NM, and I joined others from New Mexico at the Tempe meeting. I was also able to attend the Minneapolis meeting and listened to several other meetings through internet. Our comments address the questions that you have asked as well as some that should have been asked. They include: 1) How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair? 2) What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process? 3) Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role? 4) What information and
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2012 Hon. Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Environment And
    April 30, 2012 Hon. Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Hon. James Inhofe Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe, We are writing to urge you to do everything in your power to oppose the confirmation of Kristine Svinicki to a second term as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The purpose of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to regulate the nation’s nuclear power industry in order to protect the public health and safety. Yet during her first term as an NRC Commissioner, Ms. Svinicki uniformly voted for nuclear industry interests at the expense of public health and safety. The March 2011 nuclear disaster at the U.S.-designed reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site has brought a new level of public attention and scrutiny to the manifest dangers of nuclear power. The ability of U.S. nuclear reactors—23 of which are virtually identical to those at Fukushima Daiichi with a dozen more using the same design concept—to withstand earthquakes, loss-of-power situations and other challenges both natural and man-made is of critical importance. Yet on March 9, 2012, Ms. Svinicki, alone among the five current NRC Commissioners, voted against the implementation of all of the first three post-Fukushima safety measures recommended by NRC staff through the use of a regulatory framework that concludes that they are necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear reactors. This follows a long pattern of similar votes that gives the appearance Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentinel for the Home Planet 7 September 2020 James Hansen
    Fig. 1. Boldface numbers for period 1971-2018, lightface for 2010-2018. Sentinel for the Home Planet 7 September 2020 James Hansen The single number that best characterizes the status of Earth’s climate, Earth’s energy imbalance, will be updated today in a paper1 by Karina von Schuckmann and 37 co-authors. As long as Earth continues to absorb more solar energy than the planet radiates to space as heat, global temperature will continue to rise. The new paper finds that Earth’s energy imbalance increased during the past decade, with implications for the burden being left for young people. Stabilizing climate requires that humanity reduce the energy imbalance to approximately zero. That task has become more difficult during the past several years. Two numbers, atmospheric CO2 amount and global surface temperature, have received special prominence, and they deserve attention. However, this third number, Earth’s energy imbalance, is perhaps the most important. CO2 is just one of the forcings that drive climate change, even if the dominant one. Earth’s energy imbalance incorporates the effect of CO2 and all other forcings, including some, such as human-made aerosols, that are poorly measured at best. Earth’s energy imbalance will be our guide during the next several decades as we work to restore a healthy climate for future generations. It deserves greater attention. Karina von Schuckmann has become perhaps the world’s leading expert in monitoring Earth’s energy imbalance, in some sense analogous to Dave Keeling monitoring atmospheric CO2. Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance is a lot harder though, it requires a whole team of experts.
    [Show full text]